Heterosexuality is Unnatural

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 02, 2009 4:30 PM GMT
    I just watched Paprika. While reading through the IMDB boards of that movie, I came across a very interesting viewpoint from a poster:

    daniel_music_1
    A morally free biological sexuality (which even by our biological nature is not at all confined to the realm of reproduction) is actually twisted by our society, which confines us to socially invented sexual identities. Researchers have always wondered how we repress our innate sexuality or even how we develop something as innatural [sic] as a gender-base dominating sexual identity. Heteresexuality [sic] is as unnatural as all the rest, and actually a modern invention.


    This was a response to another post, while discussing the supposedly negative portrayal of homosexuality in the movie, which I disagree with. Considering that one of the characters in another of Satoshi Kon's movies - Tokyo Godfathers - portrays a cross-dressing homosexual as one of the protagonists, and the best character of them all, imo.

    It made me pause and really think about the implications of that. Is it really true? What is the definition of natural? Is human society itself part of being 'natural'?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 02, 2009 8:35 PM GMT
    I hear ya Sedative.

    My view is that 'the state of nature' is just made up. There's nothing unnatural about my life, and there wouldn't be anything particularly natural about moving into the woods and living in a hollow. I'll keep my Ikea furniture thanks.

    Besides which, even if something can, with a straight face, be called 'natural', does that mean we should do it?

    The classic example is to say that because women naturally have babies as a result of sex, then they should not morally use contraception. 'It's naturally good not to use contraception.'

    Which is bad logic...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 02, 2009 8:49 PM GMT
    Sedative saidIt made me pause and really think about the implications of that. Is it really true? What is the definition of natural? Is human society itself part of being 'natural'?

    Humans are social creatures, and our cultures an integral part of being human. We often don't like to face this humbling fact, but our culture is to us what the hive is to the honeybee, or the colony to the ant. It is very natural.

    And so in that sense we are as much defined by our culture as by our biology. And culture can be more mutable than biology, and indeed, may be one of the reasons for our evolutionary success. We can adapt to environmental changes more rapidly using cultural responses than biological ones.

    As for that blogger's statements regarding human sexuality, I think he goes a little too far the other way, underestimating the role of biology. But had a tough couple of days, and my brain has just beeped a 30-second shut-down warning... LOL!
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Feb 02, 2009 9:14 PM GMT
    Lost_In_The_Mail saidI hear ya Sedative.

    My view is that 'the state of nature' is just made up. There's nothing unnatural about my life, and there wouldn't be anything particularly natural about moving into the woods and living in a hollow. I'll keep my Ikea furniture thanks.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy


    Totally agreed.

    The attempt to appeal to what is "natural" is the most ridiculous argument religious conservatives make. And it goes far beyond any metaethical or biological uses of the word.

    The whole basis of the human experience has been to transcend what is "natural" by language and technology. We have even transcended what could be considered natural morality - the basis of which is survival and leads to nothing more than beating each other over the head with primitive weapons to survive.

    This idea of appealing to the basic features of things is a false road to any knowledge or goodness.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 02, 2009 9:41 PM GMT
    animanimus saidi don't know if it is unnatural but i'm certain they're the twisted ones, not us.

    when i want to imagine a man, i just have to put my hand in my pants.

    but when they want to fantasize a woman, what the hell do they touch?

    when i want a man to cum, i just have to relate to myself.

    when they try to get each other to cum, what the hell do they have to think?

    our sex is str8 foward; they're the ones who are twisted.


    While I make no excuses nor commentary on who is twisted and who is not, I will say that the mystery and discovery of learning what makes each woman get off is a huge part of the turn on for me. Guys are easy and, in my experience, very casual about sex and sexual contact. Women are usually enigmatic (at best) and it's always a fun challenge to figure out where/how to touch each woman in the way that she likes best.
    And to bring it back on topic, an old Psychology book I kept from school has a quote in it that reads, "Problem-solving is a natural talent and playful pastime of the Human species, and is even observed in many advanced primates."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 02, 2009 9:42 PM GMT
    There is nothing unnatural about being heterosexual, I don't care what any pseudo intellectual says.

    Man wanting, Loving, or lusting after women, has been around, since men have been around, its very natural. Man and Woman creating a child, and each offering what the other alone cannot, is natural. Growing up without a mother, and now seeing the way my fiancee takes care of the kids, I wish I had that growing up, but I'm happy my sons do, and in a way I get it as well.

    Men having a close bond, and an affectionate relationship, is natural, women do that as well, but since I'm a man, I only know the male side of it, and being the type of man I am, (same with my buddy, the guy I'm close with) I know that when things are a bit rough, and I'm down about something, or he's down about something, I'm not going to want the people who look to me for support, protection, security, and stability, to see me down and depressed because I don't want to make them feel uneasy about things. So when such normal feelings hit me, due to whatever situation is going on, same with my buddy, we have each other.

    And when we're done doing our guy thing, or bromance thing, or warrior thing, by the time we're going back to our families, we're feeling great, or starting to, which means no silent treatment, or anyone snapping at anyone hurting someone's feelings, or starting up a huge fight, and everyone going to bed angry, or with their feelings hurt. Him and I though we love our girls greatly, we share a bond/love for each other we could never have with a woman, and it has nothing to do with sex.

    That type of close relationship/love/affection between men, isn't even wrong in the eyes of god, being that David, and Johnathan shared the same love, and so if god was all against that, I think he would have destroyed em both with the quickness, and wouldn't have blessed David enough to allow him to become a king haha.

    The only reason why such relationship between men seem strange, or rare, is because of the way society today treats it, and with men like myself, to us, most of what society today is, and teaches is bullshit. Most men today are afraid to express those natural feelings with another man, because they don't want to be labeled as gay, when they aren't gay, nor is there is anything gay about it, they equate gay with weakness, and again that's society's fault.

    I'm not saying being only attracted to men, or only wanting sex from a man is wrong, and of course not all gay men are weak obviously, but that's just how some men out there view it, because the first thing that usually pops into someone's head if they feel two men are in a relationship is, "who is the bottom, and who is the top?" "who's the butch, and who's the bitch?" I think such titles/roles to give other men are degrading, and well pretty unnatural.

    Unnatural is man wanting another man to treat him as a woman, or the way men who live wrapped up in the gay world/gay culture/gay society/gay community, treat each other.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 03, 2009 2:06 PM GMT
    I think some of you guys missed the point.

    The comment I quoted did not mean Heterosexuality (as in man-woman) was unnatural per se, but rather exclusive, society-enforced heterosexuality, including the way we separate genders in different human societies.

    As in the way we say that when a man and a woman feel like having sex, it's 'natural', but when a man feels like masturbating or doing it with another man, it becomes 'unnatural'.

    Is that ingrained in us genetically or simply 'learned'? If men really were supposed to only like women why are we here? If men really were supposed to be heads of households and dominating the women, why do we have matriarchal societies? Is it possible that most of what we view as 'natural' is actually simply artificial, and born from evolution of societies rather than genetics? It doesn't stop at the man-woman pairing either.

    For example, the concept of marriage. We have all heard how it is supposedly 'naturally' between man and woman. And yet paradoxically, marriage is undoubtedly a social invention, one which has different meanings in different cultures.

    Or sex. In most societies it is taboo and to be done only with the express purpose of reproduction, but in other societies it is simply getting off. Which is the 'natural' state?

    Or Lost_In_The_Mail's example of contraceptives.

    Lost_In_The_MailMy view is that 'the state of nature' is just made up. There's nothing unnatural about my life, and there wouldn't be anything particularly natural about moving into the woods and living in a hollow. I'll keep my Ikea furniture thanks.


    styrganThe whole basis of the human experience has been to transcend what is "natural" by language and technology. We have even transcended what could be considered natural morality - the basis of which is survival and leads to nothing more than beating each other over the head with primitive weapons to survive.


    My point of view on this agrees with the two above obviously. icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 03, 2009 11:21 PM GMT
    I have read this thread and I have to admit, I'm struggling to get round to the gist in what this is about. I was drawn to it by the topic heading, "Heterosexuality is Unnatural", something that jolted me out of my half-dreamy state while browsing.
    Perhaps I like to put in a question or two: If hetero is unnatural, err, how did I get here, as with the whole of mankind and....dohhh...?
    And if the Gay lifestyle is so natural, why are many members here so embarrassed to show their faces here at RJ, a Gay website?
    Marriage is still marriage, no matter which country and culture one may be in. Sure, Islam has a particular nasty way of expressing it, the men treat their wives as slaves. Yea, that is bad, evil. But childbirth is still the result of this male-female union.
    The percentage ratio, acccording to official statistics is approx 95% Straight, 5% Gay. If Gay was more or at least as natural as Straight, wouldn't the ratio be closer to 50/50, with no bias against homosexuality within the straight community? Furthermore, why are so many Gays remain in their closets, if this is not the case among heterosexual couples? So,the Straight community is biased against Gays, whether they're religious or not. Shoudn't it be?
    Okay, I'll go further. The rate of suicide is much higher among Gays than among Straights. In the general population, more homosexuals commit suicide than heteros, despite the 95/5 ratio. Generally, Gays are angrier than Straights, suffer more rejection than Straights, especially when they get older, and often find it more difficult to hold lasting relationships, not to say it is also a sterile lifestyle.
    No,I'm not making all this up.
    All I'm saying is that Heterosexuality is the natural ideal.
    And I have not even mentioned God.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 03, 2009 11:23 PM GMT
    huh
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 03, 2009 11:46 PM GMT
    NotThatOld said
    All I'm saying is that Heterosexuality is the natural ideal.
    Who says nature has it right? Our species could survive with gays and lesbians performing in-vitro fertilization. Your world is no bigger than the cottage your parents birthed you in.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 03, 2009 11:50 PM GMT
    I would consider anything natural to be anything that spontaneously occurs in nature, which is just about everything, including two men having rough passionate sex
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2009 12:30 AM GMT
    TheIStrat saidI would consider anything natural to be anything that spontaneously occurs in nature, which is just about everything, including two men having rough passionate sex


    LOL. Couldn't put it more clearly than that. icon_wink.gif
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Feb 04, 2009 12:39 AM GMT
    NotThatOld saidI have read this thread and I have to admit, I'm struggling to get round to the gist in what this is about.


    Is that because you have trouble with multisyllabic words?
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Feb 04, 2009 12:43 AM GMT
    NotThatOld said And if the Gay lifestyle is so natural, why are many members here so embarrassed to show their faces here at RJ, a Gay website?


    It's not a lifestyle.

    And nature has just about nothing to do with constructs created and reinforced by society that repress sexuality - not just homosexuality, but contraception, sex out of wedlock, and so forth.
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Feb 04, 2009 12:47 AM GMT
    NotThatOld said Marriage is still marriage, no matter which country and culture one may be in. Sure, Islam has a particular nasty way of expressing it, the men treat their wives as slaves. Yea, that is bad, evil. But childbirth is still the result of this male-female union.
    The percentage ratio, acccording to official statistics is approx 95% Straight, 5% Gay. If Gay was more or at least as natural as Straight, wouldn't the ratio be closer to 50/50, with no bias against homosexuality within the straight community?


    So by your logic, nature is a numbers game. I suppose we should burn gray-eyed or left-handed people at the stake. Pick up a genetics textbook on your way home from your electroshock treatments.

    And I suppose we shouldn't recognize the marriages of straight couples who are infertile since the end of marriage is childbirth, by your logic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2009 1:01 AM GMT
    Think about it. You have:

    Homosexuality
    Homosapien
    Homoerectus
    Homogenize
    Homo neanderthalensis
    the list goes on and on

    Where does Hetro come in? Obviously since the word Homo is linked to many words and classification concerning humans and Hetro is linked to to almost none then it's got to be unnatural. I think it's an alien invasion.

    Stop the heterogeneity!
  • Tiller66

    Posts: 380

    Feb 04, 2009 1:02 AM GMT
    Well I feel that the only thing natural about us(the humen race)is that in almost every facet of our lives is that we find a way to aransend what we can do naturally.I mean just all of us on here is not a functon of what our bodies can do but is a natural function of what our minds can accomlish.And that is what I tell those that say being gay is not a natural,my responce is "so it's natural someone near-sighted can see right or that in our cars we travel at 40mph or fly in oue jets all over the world or see in dead of night.If you can give all of that up maybe I'll try to be str8." Needless to say sometimes I rub people the wrong way but Iam using what comes naturalicon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2009 1:06 AM GMT
    mickeytopogigio said
    NotThatOld said
    All I'm saying is that Heterosexuality is the natural ideal.
    Who says nature has it right? Our species could survive with gays and lesbians performing in-vitro fertilization. Your world is no bigger than the cottage your parents birthed you in.


    Yes, absolutely right! But what a crushingly dreadful world it would be without the thrill and enjoyment of straight sex with the one you love above anyone else. Besides, I watched the growth of all three of my daughters as fetuses via the ultrasound scan. All formed by natural sexual relationship, without any input from doctors, IVF or any form of artificial fertilisation. And unlike IVF, for example, which cost thousands of pounds/dollars, they were free!
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Feb 04, 2009 1:11 AM GMT
    I am suddenly beginning to understand the outrage in the Phelps threads.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2009 3:03 AM GMT
    NotThatOld saidBesides, I watched the growth of all three of my daughters as fetuses via the ultrasound scan. All formed by natural sexual relationship, without any input from doctors...
    I'm not sure if corresponding with you has any value. You've missed the entire gist of this thread with your two posts.

    Somehow, I gather from your posts, you feel as though your "natural" procreative activities are either a) under attack; or b) better than other procreative activities.

    The point of this thread is that "natural" or "normal" qualitative terms are basically meaningless. Someone was helpful enough to post a Wikipedia link, which listed some philosophical discussions about such fallacies. Your post comes along, as basically a textbook example of said fallacies. Do you mean to be ironic, or do you not comprehend what you are reading very well?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2009 4:03 AM GMT
    NotThatOld saidOkay, I'll go further. The rate of suicide is much higher among Gays than among Straights. In the general population, more homosexuals commit suicide than heteros, despite the 95/5 ratio. Generally, Gays are angrier than Straights, suffer more rejection than Straights, especially when they get older, and often find it more difficult to hold lasting relationships, not to say it is also a sterile lifestyle.
    No,I'm not making all this up..

    You know I don't have anything against you or anyone else here, but this is pretty damn stupid. The reason gays have problems like you describe is because the persecution and torment they face from heterosexuals. Many even as adults suffer issues with self-loathing sort of like you do -- BECAUSE THE HELL AND GUILT TRIP THAT STRAIGHT PEOPLE PUT THEM THROUGH!

    Blaming homosexuality for the issues gays have is like a child abuser blaming his victims for mental problems they have later in life when it is the fault of the abuser himself. By your same twisted reasoning, you can say that heterosexuality leads to divorce, rape, and child molestation because the vast majority of such things are perpetrated by heterosexuals icon_rolleyes.gif And no, I am not making this up.
  • imperator

    Posts: 626

    Feb 10, 2009 2:39 PM GMT
    Rad_d81 saidThere is nothing unnatural about being heterosexual, I don't care what any pseudo intellectual says.

    Man wanting, Loving, or lusting after women, has been around, since men have been around, its very natural. Man and Woman creating a child, and each offering what the other alone cannot, is natural. [...]



    I can't speak for the author that was cited in the OP, but I think what they were getting at is "heterosexuality" as some rigid, definitive, 'self-fulfilling prophecy' label where a person who's raised to believe that a) they're 'heterosexual' and b) that 'heterosexuality' means man + woman will thereby go on to repress any same-sex attractions that might arise in them regardless of their label is "unnatural." I mean really, what % of the population is truly hardwired to have sexual thoughts/feelings *exclusively* about the other sex? Men chasing women and vice versa, sure, have at 'er, but 'naming' oneself after what one is doing? That's like saying "I'm a plumber" as though that means something, as though it is what you are; so then what is a man who's called himself a plumber if he's laid off and does something else for a while?

    It's come up a million times: "well self-described 'straight man' X fucked another guy... once... but how 'straight' does that really make him?" It's such an artificial category that there's a pretty strong dissonance if there's so much as one moment of exception to the 'rules;' the label/category of "heterosexual" can't seem to either constrain human feelings and behaviour, or it can't seem to withstand in our minds when its terms are breached. So maybe the problem isn't with the people, maybe it's with the 'straight' descriptor being essentially made-up and hollow. I'm on-board with the camp that says that only a tiny fraction of humanity is exclusively "hetero" or "homo" in their sexuality-- never been, never will, never *could* be sexually attracted to a person of the 'wrong' sex for their orientation-- and the vast majority are just "sexual" and stymied in the range of their expression by social pressures and expectations and conformity to labels. If a woman can talk her 'straight' husband into sex with her and another guy where everyone's touching everyone else, and if I can still retain some small vestigial-straight attraction to Eliza Dushku, then there's something 'incomplete' in our straight/gay dichotomy.

    But as culture is opening up to diversity and it's becoming more and more 'okay' to transgress worn-out arbitrary categories, we're seeing less rigid 'orientation conformity' all over the place, and the ones who are really starting to stand out as strange are the straight guys who *flip out* like a cornered gorilla at the very idea they could ever have sex with another man, and the gay men who spit and act frantic at the mere mention of vagina as though being in the same room with one would do them harm. And those extremely 'dogmatically' oriented people probably don't need a label except for a warning sticker regarding their hysterical outbursts when anything other brushes up against their comfort zone. They're both acting out extremes that show just how tenuous and artificial and 'unnatural' a strict, "practiced" sexual 'orientation' is as opposed to just accepting our fluid, adaptable, pleasure-loving nature and being "sexual."

    Or, phrased to portend a hilarious future reversal of roles: "You straight and gay people are imaginary, we don't believe you exist!" quoth the 'bisexuals.' icon_wink.gif
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Feb 10, 2009 2:45 PM GMT
    I agree with the statement that sexual identity is a social construct. We are always under pressure to define who we are in all manners, especially sexually. Ask someone their opinion on bisexuality for a perfect example.